We’ve been running enough campaigns now that I’m starting to see a pattern, and it’s honestly frustrating.
We had this UGC campaign for a skincare brand—super successful in the US. High engagement, solid conversion, creators loved working on it. The concept was straightforward: everyday people showing their skincare routine, authentic and unpolished. It hit a nerve with the US audience.
We thought: great, let’s run the same campaign in Mexico and Brazil. Same creative brief, same product angle, same styling. We even used some of the same creators (bilingual ones from LATAM who work internationally).
The results were night and day different. In Brazil, engagement was half of what we saw in the US. In Mexico, the content felt off—viewers commented that it looked “too American” or “not real enough for our market.” Conversion tanked.
Here’s what I think happened, but I’m not totally sure: the cultural context around skincare routines, beauty standards, and what “authentic” means differs wildly. In the US, the trend is all about minimalism and natural beauty. In LATAM, skincare is more of a ritual, it’s tied to self-care and wellness. The same product benefits got interpreted through completely different cultural lenses.
I’m trying to figure out: is it the creative concept itself that needs to change? The creators? The product angle? Or is it just impossible to replicate success across regions without rebuilding from scratch?
Also—when you’ve had a win in one market, how do you know what parts are actually transferable to another market versus what needs to stay locked to the region it came from?
Отличное наблюдение! Я вижу это постоянно. Проблема не в самом контенте—проблема в том, что вы копируете контент вместо того, чтобы копировать ПРОЦЕСС.
Когда кампания работает в США, это значит, что вы нашли правильный сочетание:
- Целевая аудитория и её боли
- Правильный тон и стиль исполнения
- Правильный набор криэйторов и их идентичность
Когда вы берёте этот контент и отправляете его в Мексику, вы отправляете ВСЁ—включая культурный контекст, который не резонирует локально.
Что надо делать: возьмите ту же СТРАТЕГИЮ (что именно в кампании работало—authenticity? relatability? specific benefit?) и переработайте её с локальными криэйторами. Они создадут контент, который выглядит как локальный UGC, но следует той же стратегической логике.
У нас это называется “портирование фреймворка вместо портирования контента”. Вы копируете каркас успеха, но позволяете каждому рынку добавлять свой материал.
И ещё совет: найдите криэйторов в каждом регионе, которые понимают оба рынка—например, криэйторов с опытом работы в США или с американской аудиторией. Они смогут перевести культурный код, не потеряв суть кампании.
Например, если в США крийтор показывает 5-минутную routine, в LATAM она может показать 10-минутную, потому что там skincare это больше про rituals и selfcare. Но суть—authenticity и real life—остаётся та же.
Давайте посмотрим на данные. Я проанализировала несколько успешных кампаний и вот что обнаружила:
Когда контент копируется 1:1 между регионами—performance падает на 45-60% в лучшем случае.
Когда контент адаптируется (новые криэйторы, но та же стратегия)—performance падает только на 10-20%.
Когда контент полностью переделывается для локального рынка—полученный результат часто на 15-30% выше исходной кампании.
Почему? Потому что вы учитесь из успеха первого рынка и применяете эти знания более эффективно во втором.
Рекомендация: создавайте быстрый анализ успешной кампании. Выделите:
- Что сработало (тип контента, тон, формат)
- Почему это сработало (целевая аудитория, культурный контекст)
- Что в этом УНИВЕРСАЛЬНО (может работать везде)
- Что ЛОКАЛЬНО (работает только в этом регионе)
Этот анализ становится бриффом для нового рынка.
This is one of the biggest mistakes agencies make with scaling. They see a win and immediately try to replicate it instead of understanding why it won.
Here’s the framework I use:
-
Deconstruct the win: What was the core insight? Was it about authenticity? Relatability? A specific pain point? The format? The creator type?
-
Test transferability: Which elements are culture-agnostic vs. culture-specific? “Everyday people in their homes” is culture-agnostic. “Woman in a minimalist apartment with natural lighting” is very culture-specific.
-
Adapt, don’t copy: Take the core insight (authenticity) and brief new creators in the new market to express it through their cultural lens. Don’t send them the old content as reference.
-
Set baselines: Budget for 20-30% variance in performance in the first iteration of a regional campaign. You’re still learning.
What we see consistently: the second market typically outperforms the first by 15-25% because you’re now running the campaign with better insights and fewer assumptions. The third market usually hits it even better.
The key is treating each market launch like a new campaign that’s informed by prior learnings, not a rerun of the old campaign.
As a creator making UGC, I can tell you exactly why this happens: when brands send me existing content and say “make something like this for your audience,” the result feels forced. It doesn’t feel authentic because I’m trying to replicate someone else’s vibe instead of bringing my own.
What works better: give me the product and the core message, but let me interpret it through my own creative lens and my audience’s vibe. I’ll naturally create something that resonates because it’s genuinely how I’d use the product.
Also, different creators have different strengths. Some are great at humor, some at emotion, some at education. If the original campaign worked because it had a specific creator’s energy, you can’t just copy that energy with a different creator. You need to find someone with a similar energy in the new market and trust them to bring their own flavor.
Bottom line: stop sending creators other people’s work as references. Send them the strategy and trust them to execute it authentically.
Let me reframe this as a testing and optimization problem, which is how we should approach it.
When a campaign wins in market A, you’ve essentially run a successful test. You’ve learned:
- What message resonates
- What format works
- What creator archetype drives engagement
- What conversion path is optimal
But you’ve learned it in the context of market A’s audience, media landscape, and competitive environment.
When you move to market B, three things change:
- Audience psychology and cultural values
- Competitive set (different brands, different messaging)
- Media consumption patterns
What should transfer: your testing methodology and strategic learnings.
What shouldn’t transfer: the literal creative execution.
I’d recommend this approach:
- Run a quick market scan in the new region ($2-5K) to understand audience sentiment and competitive landscape
- Brief creators with the strategic insight (not the old creative) and have them develop region-appropriate content
- Run the campaign with 2-3 creator cohorts (not just one)
- Measure performance against both the old market benchmarks and local benchmarks
- Iterate based on data
Expect the first iteration to underperform by 20-30%. The second iteration (based on the data) often outperforms the original by 15-25%. That’s normal and healthy.